:00:00. > :00:35.house in South Yorkshire. A cordon has been put in place
:00:36. > :00:43.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:44. > :00:45.He's a man on a mission. But is it mission impossible? Iain Duncan
:00:46. > :00:50.Smith has started the radical reform of our welfare state. No tall order.
:00:51. > :00:54.And not everything's going to plan. We'll be talking to the man himself.
:00:55. > :00:58.Nick Clegg's hosting his party's spring conference in York. He's
:00:59. > :01:00.getting pretty cosy with the party faithful. Not so
:01:01. > :01:04.getting pretty cosy with the party his Coalition partners. In fact,
:01:05. > :01:08.things are getting a wee bit nasty. We'll be talking to his right-hand
:01:09. > :01:12.man, Danny Alexander. And are all politicians
:01:13. > :01:17.On the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire once. We'll be
:01:18. > :01:20.On the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire: We're in Xork
:01:21. > :01:23.where the Lib Dems are gathdred this weekend. Nick Clegg tells us why he
:01:24. > :01:29.claims the war on drugs is being lost.
:01:30. > :01:34.11,000 new homes in the next three decades?
:01:35. > :01:40.And with me, as always, three of the best and the brightest political
:01:41. > :01:44.panel in the business. At least that's what it says in the Sunday
:01:45. > :01:49.Politics template. Back from the Oscars empty handed, Helen Lewis,
:01:50. > :01:50.Janan Ganesh and Iain Martin. Yes, three camera-shy hacks, who've never
:01:51. > :01:53.taken a selfie in their life. We'll three camera-shy hacks, who've never
:01:54. > :01:56.be coming to that later. They just like to tweet. And they'll be doing
:01:57. > :01:58.so throughout the programme. Welcome.
:01:59. > :02:04.Now, first this morning, the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York.
:02:05. > :02:07.I know you speak of nothing else! The Yorkshire spring sunshine hasn't
:02:08. > :02:13.made the Lib Dems think any more kindly of their Coalition partners.
:02:14. > :02:17.Indeed, Tory bashing is now the Lib Dem default position. Here's Danny
:02:18. > :02:21.Alexander speaking yesterday. Repairing the economy on its own
:02:22. > :02:30.isn't enough. We have to do it fairly.
:02:31. > :02:30.isn't enough. We have to do it the agenda a decision to cut taxes,
:02:31. > :02:39.income taxes, for working people. Now, conference, note that word -
:02:40. > :02:43.forced. We have had to fight for this at the last election and at
:02:44. > :02:45.every budget and at every Autumn Statement since 2010 and what a
:02:46. > :02:57.fight it has been. Danny Alexander joins us now. Are we
:02:58. > :02:59.going to have to suffer 14 months of you and your colleagues desperately
:03:00. > :03:06.trying to distance yourself from the Tories? It's not about distancing
:03:07. > :03:09.ourselves. It's about saying, " this is what we as a party have achieved
:03:10. > :03:16.in government together with the Conservatives". And saying, " this
:03:17. > :03:22.is what our agenda is for the future" . It's not just about the
:03:23. > :03:25.fact that this April we reach that ?10,000 income tax allowance that we
:03:26. > :03:31.promised in our manifesto in 20 0 but also that we want to go further
:03:32. > :03:38.in the next parliament and live that to ?12,500, getting that over
:03:39. > :03:41.2-term Liberal Democrat government. It's very important for all parties
:03:42. > :03:45.to set out their own agenda, ideas and vision for the future, whilst
:03:46. > :03:49.also celebrating what we're achieving jointly in this Coalition,
:03:50. > :03:55.particularly around the fact that we are, having taken very difficult
:03:56. > :03:58.decisions, seeing the economy improving and seeing jobs creation
:03:59. > :04:02.in this country, which is something I'm personally very proud and, as
:04:03. > :04:04.the Coalition, we have achieved and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for
:04:05. > :04:09.the decisions of the Liberal Democrats. Lets try and move on
:04:10. > :04:13.You've made that point about 50 times on this show alone. You now
:04:14. > :04:18.seem more interested in Rowling with each other than running the country,
:04:19. > :04:27.don't you? -- rowing with each other. I think we are making sure we
:04:28. > :04:30.take the decisions, particularly about getting our economy
:04:31. > :04:33.take the decisions, particularly right track. Of course, there are
:04:34. > :04:37.lots of things where the Conservatives have one view of the
:04:38. > :04:41.future and we have a different view and it's quite proper that we should
:04:42. > :04:43.set those things out. There are big differences between the Liberal
:04:44. > :04:46.Democrats and the Conservatives just as there were big differences
:04:47. > :04:51.between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. I believe we're
:04:52. > :04:55.the only party that can marry that commitment delivering a strong
:04:56. > :04:57.economy, which Labour can't do, and that commitment to delivering a
:04:58. > :05:01.fairer society, which the Tories can't be trusted to do by
:05:02. > :05:04.themselves. You are going out of your way to pick fights with the
:05:05. > :05:09.Tories at the moment. It's a bit like American wrestling. It is all
:05:10. > :05:12.show. Nobody is really getting hurt. I've been compared to many things
:05:13. > :05:20.but an American wrestler is a first! I don't see it like that It
:05:21. > :05:24.is right for us as a party to set out what we've achieved and show
:05:25. > :05:30.people that what we promised on 2010 on income tax cuts is what this
:05:31. > :05:33.government is delivering. But nobody seems convinced by these
:05:34. > :05:38.manufactured rows with the Tories. You've just come last in a council
:05:39. > :05:43.by-election with 56 votes. You were even bitten by an Elvis
:05:44. > :05:53.impersonator! Yes, that is true -- beaten. I could equally well quote
:05:54. > :05:59.council by-elections that we've won recently, beating Conservatives the
:06:00. > :06:02.Labour Party and UKIP. Our record on that is pretty good. You can always
:06:03. > :06:07.pick one that shows one or other party in a poor light. Our party is
:06:08. > :06:11.having real traction with the electric and the places where we
:06:12. > :06:11.have a real chance of winning. If you're not an
:06:12. > :06:17.have a real chance of winning. If maybe you should be an Elvis
:06:18. > :06:23.impersonator! You told your spring forum... You don't want to hear me
:06:24. > :06:27.sing! You want to raise the personal allowance to ?12,500 in the next
:06:28. > :06:32.Parliament. Will you refuse to enter into Coalition with any party that
:06:33. > :06:35.won't agree to that? What I said yesterday is that this will be
:06:36. > :06:41.something which is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats.
:06:42. > :06:46.It's something that we will very much seek to achieve if we are
:06:47. > :06:52.involved... We know that - will it be a red line? If you are a number
:06:53. > :06:57.in 2010, on the front page of our manifesto, we highlighted four
:06:58. > :07:02.policies... I know all that. Will it be a red line? It will be something
:07:03. > :07:04.that is a very high priority for the Liberal Democrats to deliver. For
:07:05. > :07:11.that is a very high priority for the the fifth time, will it be a red
:07:12. > :07:13.line? It will be, as I said, a very high priority for the Liberal
:07:14. > :07:18.Democrats in the next Parliament. That's my language. We did that in
:07:19. > :07:21.the next election. The number-1 promise on our manifesto with a
:07:22. > :07:25.?10,000 threshold and we've delivered that in this Parliament.
:07:26. > :07:32.People can see that when we say something is a top priority, we
:07:33. > :07:35.deliver it. Is it your claim... Are you claiming that the Tories would
:07:36. > :07:40.not have raised the starting point of income tax if it hadn't been for
:07:41. > :07:43.the Liberal Democrats? If you remember back in the leaders'
:07:44. > :07:47.debates in the 2010 election campaign, Nick Clegg was rightly
:07:48. > :07:53.championing this idea and David Cameron said it couldn't be
:07:54. > :07:59.afforded. Each step of the way in the Coalition negotiations within
:08:00. > :08:02.government, we've had to fight for that. The covert overtures have
:08:03. > :08:07.other priorities. -- the Conservatives. I don't want to go
:08:08. > :08:12.back into history. I'd like to get to the present. Have the
:08:13. > :08:17.Conservatives resisted every effort to raise the starting point of
:08:18. > :08:22.income tax? As I said, we promised this in 2010, they said it couldn't
:08:23. > :08:27.be done. We've made sure it was delivered in the Coalition. Have
:08:28. > :08:31.they resisted it? We've argued for big steps along the way and forced
:08:32. > :08:39.it on to the agenda. They've wanted to deliver other things are so we've
:08:40. > :08:45.had to fight for our priority.. Did the Conservatives resist every
:08:46. > :08:48.attempt? It has been resisted, overall the things I'm talking
:08:49. > :08:51.about, by Conservatives, because they have wanted to deliver other
:08:52. > :08:57.things and, of course, in a Coalition you negotiate. Both
:08:58. > :09:00.parties have their priorities. Our priority has been a very consistent
:09:01. > :09:05.one. Last year, they were arguing about tax breaks for married
:09:06. > :09:11.couples. They were arguing in 2 10 for tax cuts for millionaires. Our
:09:12. > :09:15.priority in all these discussions has been a consistent one, which is
:09:16. > :09:23.to say we want cutbacks for working people. -- we want to cut tax for
:09:24. > :09:26.working people. That has been delivered by both parties in the
:09:27. > :09:31.Coalition government full top So what do you think when the Tories
:09:32. > :09:35.take credit for it? I understand why they want to try to do that. Most
:09:36. > :09:42.people understand what we have just said. Not if the polls are to be
:09:43. > :09:50.believed... You're under 10%. This is one of the things, when I talk to
:09:51. > :09:54.people, but I find they know that the Lib Dems have delivered in
:09:55. > :09:57.government. People know we promised it in 2010 and we're the ones who
:09:58. > :10:02.forced this idea onto the agenda in our election manifesto. You've said
:10:03. > :10:09.that five times in this interview alone. The reality is, this is now a
:10:10. > :10:13.squabbling, loveless marriage. We're getting bored with all your tests,
:10:14. > :10:21.the voters. Why don't you just divorced? -- all your arguments I
:10:22. > :10:24.don't accept that. On a lot of policy areas, the Coalition
:10:25. > :10:28.government has worked very well together. We're delivering an awful
:10:29. > :10:31.lot of things that matter to this country. Most importantly, the mess
:10:32. > :10:35.that Labour made of the economy we are sorting out. We are getting our
:10:36. > :10:37.that Labour made of the economy we finances on the right track, making
:10:38. > :10:41.our economy more competitive, creating jobs up and down this
:10:42. > :10:45.country, supporting businesses to invest in growth. That is what this
:10:46. > :10:48.Coalition was set up to do, what it is delivering, and both myself and
:10:49. > :10:53.George Osborne are proud to have worked together to deliver that
:10:54. > :10:59.record. Danny Alexander, thanks for that. Enjoyed York. Helen, is
:11:00. > :11:02.anybody listening? I do worry that another 40 months of this might
:11:03. > :11:10.drive voter apathy up to record levels. There is a simple answer to
:11:11. > :11:13.why they don't divorced - it's the agreement that Parliament will last
:11:14. > :11:16.until 2015. MPs are bouncing around Westminster with very little to do.
:11:17. > :11:21.They are looking for things to put in the Queen's Speech and we are
:11:22. > :11:22.going to have rocks basically the 40 months and very little substantial
:11:23. > :11:29.difference in policies. Do believe Danny Alexander when he says
:11:30. > :11:34.there would have been no rise in the starting rate of income tax if not
:11:35. > :11:41.for the Lib Dems? He's gilding the lily. If you look back at papers are
:11:42. > :11:47.written in 2001 suggesting precisely this policy, written by a Tory peer,
:11:48. > :11:53.you see there are plenty of Tories which suggest there would have been
:11:54. > :11:58.this kind of move. I can see why Danny Alexander needs to do this and
:11:59. > :12:01.they need to show they've achieved something in government because they
:12:02. > :12:07.are below 10% in the polls and finding it incredibly difficult to
:12:08. > :12:11.get any traction at all. The other leg of this Lib Dem repositioning is
:12:12. > :12:16.now to be explicitly the party of Europe and to be the vanguard of the
:12:17. > :12:20.fight to be all things pro-Europe. Mr Clegg is going to debate Nigel
:12:21. > :12:27.Farage in the run-up to the European elections. If, despite that, the Lib
:12:28. > :12:53.Dems come last of the major parties, doesn't it show how out of touch
:12:54. > :12:55.different. They are targeting a section of the electorate who are a
:12:56. > :13:02.bit more amenable to their views than the rest. They wouldn't get 20%
:13:03. > :13:05.of the vote. They are targeting that one section. They have to do
:13:06. > :13:09.disproportionately well amongst those and it will payoff and they
:13:10. > :13:15.will end up with something like 15%. How many seats will the Lib Dems
:13:16. > :13:24.losing the next election? Ten. 0. 15. Triangulation! We'll keep that
:13:25. > :13:27.on tape and see what actually happens!
:13:28. > :13:31.The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is a man on a mission.
:13:32. > :13:34.He's undertaken the biggest overhaul in our welfare state since it was
:13:35. > :13:38.invented way back in the black-and-white days of the late
:13:39. > :13:43.1940s. A committed Roman Catholic, he's said he has a moral vision to
:13:44. > :13:47.reverse the previous welfare system, which he believes didn't create
:13:48. > :13:52.enough incentive for people to work. But are his reforms working? Are
:13:53. > :13:55.they fair? As he bitten off more than he can chew? In a moment, we'll
:13:56. > :14:00.speak to the man himself but first, here's Adam.
:14:01. > :14:03.Hackney in north London and we're on the road with the man who might just
:14:04. > :14:08.be the most ambitious welfare secretary there's ever been. It s a
:14:09. > :14:12.journey that started in the wind and rain on a Glasgow council estate 12
:14:13. > :14:16.years ago when he was Tory leader. He came face-to-face with what it
:14:17. > :14:21.meant to be poor. A selection of teddy bears. It's where he
:14:22. > :14:26.discovered his recipe for reform, according to one of the advisers who
:14:27. > :14:31.was with him. There are things that if you do get a job, keep your
:14:32. > :14:36.family together, stay off drugs and alcohol, make sure you have a proper
:14:37. > :14:41.skill - that's what keeps you of poverty. He, very ambitiously, wants
:14:42. > :14:47.to redefine the nature of what it means to be poor and how you get
:14:48. > :14:51.away from poverty. Back in north London, he's come to congratulate
:14:52. > :14:54.the troops on some good news. In this borough, the number of people
:14:55. > :14:59.on job-seeker's allowance has gone down by 29% in the last
:15:00. > :15:04.on job-seeker's allowance has gone from around 1700 to around 1200 But
:15:05. > :15:08.the picture in his wider changes to the welfare state is a bit more
:15:09. > :15:14.mixed. A cap on the total amount of benefits a family can get, of
:15:15. > :15:17.?26,000 a year, is hugely popular but there have been howls of protest
:15:18. > :15:23.over cuts to housing benefit, labelled the bedroom tax by some.
:15:24. > :15:25.Protests, too, about assessments for people on disability benefits,
:15:26. > :15:29.inherited from the previous government. Iain Duncan Smith has
:15:30. > :15:35.been accused of being heartless and the company doing them, Atos, has
:15:36. > :15:38.pulled out. And then the big one - and universal credit, a plan to roll
:15:39. > :15:44.six benefits into one monthly payment, in a way designed to ensure
:15:45. > :15:48.that work always pays. Some of the IT has been written off and the
:15:49. > :15:51.timetable seems to be slipping. Outside the bubble of the
:15:52. > :15:56.stage-managed ministerial trip, a local Labour MP reckons he's bitten
:15:57. > :16:01.off more than he can chew. The great desire is to say, " let's have one
:16:02. > :16:06.simple one size fits all approach" . And there isn't one size of person
:16:07. > :16:10.or family out there. People need to change and they can challenge on the
:16:11. > :16:13.turn of a penny almost. One minute they are doing the right thing,
:16:14. > :16:17.working hard. Next minute, they need a level of support and if this
:16:18. > :16:21.simple system doesn't deliver that for them, they're in a difficult
:16:22. > :16:28.position. And that's the flying visit to the front line finished. He
:16:29. > :16:31.does not like to hang about and just as well do - his overhaul of the
:16:32. > :16:40.entire benefits system still has quite a long way to go. And Iain
:16:41. > :16:44.Duncan Smith joins me now. Before I come onto the interview on welfare
:16:45. > :16:51.reform, is Danny Alexander right when he claims the Lib Dems had to
:16:52. > :16:56.fight to get the Tories to raise the income tax threshold? That is not my
:16:57. > :17:02.recollection of what happened. These debates took place in the
:17:03. > :17:06.Coalition. The Conservatives are in favour of reducing the overall
:17:07. > :17:11.burden of taxation, so the question was how best do we do it? The
:17:12. > :17:17.conversation took place, they were keen on raising the threshold, there
:17:18. > :17:21.were also other ways of doing it but it is clear from the Conservatives
:17:22. > :17:26.that we always wanted to improve the quality of life of those at the
:17:27. > :17:31.bottom so raising the threshold fit within the overall plan. If it was a
:17:32. > :17:40.row, it was the kind of row you have over a cup of tea round the
:17:41. > :17:47.breakfast table. We have got a lot to cover. There are two criticisms
:17:48. > :17:54.mainly of what you are doing - will they work, and will they be fair?
:17:55. > :17:58.Leslie Roberts, one of our viewers, wants to know why so much has
:17:59. > :18:01.already been written off due to failures of the universal credit
:18:02. > :18:10.system even though it has been barely introduced. Relatively it has
:18:11. > :18:17.been a ?2 billion investment project, in the private sector
:18:18. > :18:23.programmes are written off regularly at 30, 40%. The IT is working, we
:18:24. > :18:27.are improving as we go along, the key thing is to keep your
:18:28. > :18:29.are improving as we go along, the parts that don't work and make sure
:18:30. > :18:39.they don't create a problem for the programme. 140 million has been
:18:40. > :18:44.wasted! The 40 million that was written off was just do with
:18:45. > :18:48.security IT, and I took that decision over a year and a half ago
:18:49. > :18:55.so the programme continued to roll out. Those figures include the
:18:56. > :19:04.standard right down, the aggregation of cost over a period of time. The
:19:05. > :19:09.computers were written down years ago but they continue to work now.
:19:10. > :19:13.Universal credit is rolling out we are doing the Pathfinders and
:19:14. > :19:22.learning a lot but I will not ever do this again like the last
:19:23. > :19:28.government, big band launches, you should do it phrase by phrase. Even
:19:29. > :19:34.your colleague Francis Maude says the implementation of universal
:19:35. > :19:38.credit has been pretty lamentable. He was referring back to the time
:19:39. > :19:44.when I stopped that element of the process and I agreed with that. I
:19:45. > :19:49.intervened to make the changes. The key point is that it is rolling out
:19:50. > :19:55.and I invite anyone to look at where it is being rolled out to. You were
:19:56. > :20:01.predicting that a million people would be an universal credit, this
:20:02. > :20:05.is the new welfare credit which rolls up six existing welfare
:20:06. > :20:11.benefits and you were predicting a million people would be on it by
:20:12. > :20:21.April, well it is March and only 3200 are on it. I changed the way we
:20:22. > :20:24.rolled it out and there was a reason for that. Under the advice of
:20:25. > :20:30.someone we brought from outside he said that you are better rolling it
:20:31. > :20:34.out slower and gaining momentum later on. On the timetables for
:20:35. > :20:39.rolling out we are pretty clear that it will roll out within the
:20:40. > :20:43.timescale is originally set. We will roll it out into the Northwest so
:20:44. > :20:50.that we replicate the north and the Northwest, recognise how it works
:20:51. > :20:56.properly. You will not hit 1 million by April. I have no intention of
:20:57. > :21:01.claiming that, and it is quite deliberate because that is the wrong
:21:02. > :21:06.thing to do. We want to roll it out carefully so we make sure everything
:21:07. > :21:09.about it works. There are lots of variables in this process but if you
:21:10. > :21:16.do it that way, you will not end up with the kind of debacle where in
:21:17. > :21:23.the past something like ?28 billion worth of IT programmes were written
:21:24. > :21:29.off. ?38 billion of net benefits, which is exactly what the N a O Z,
:21:30. > :21:35.so it is worth getting it right William Grant wants to know, when
:21:36. > :21:41.will the universal credit cover the whole country? By 2016, everybody
:21:42. > :21:48.who is claiming one of those six benefits will be claiming universal
:21:49. > :21:54.credit. Some and sickness benefits will take longer to come on because
:21:55. > :21:59.it is more difficult. Many of them have no work expectations on them,
:22:00. > :22:04.but for those on working tax credits, on things like job-seeker's
:22:05. > :22:09.allowance, they will be making claims on universal credit. Many of
:22:10. > :22:14.them are already doing that now there are 200,000 people around the
:22:15. > :22:26.country already on universal credit. You cannot give me a date as to when
:22:27. > :22:31.everybody will be on it? 2016 is when everybody claiming this benefit
:22:32. > :22:35.will be on, then you have to bring others and take them slower.
:22:36. > :22:41.Universal credit is a big and important reform, not an IT reform.
:22:42. > :22:43.The important point is that it will be a massive cultural reform. Right
:22:44. > :22:49.now somebody has to go be a massive cultural reform. Right
:22:50. > :22:52.there is a small job out there. They won't take that because the way
:22:53. > :22:58.their benefits are withdrawn, it will mean it is not worth doing it.
:22:59. > :23:02.Under the way we have got it in the Pathfinders, the change is
:23:03. > :23:06.dramatic. A job-seeker can take a small part time job while they are
:23:07. > :23:12.looking for work and it means flexibility for business so it is a
:23:13. > :23:16.big change. Lets see if that is true because universal credit is meant to
:23:17. > :23:23.make work pay, that is your mantra. Let me show you a quote Minister in
:23:24. > :23:46.the last -- in the last Tory conference. It
:23:47. > :23:53.has only come down to 76%. Actually form own parents, before they get to
:23:54. > :23:58.the tax bracket it is well below that. That is a decision the
:23:59. > :24:03.Government takes about the withdrawal rate so you can lower
:24:04. > :24:08.that rate or raise it. And do your reforms, some of the poorest
:24:09. > :24:20.people, if they burn an extra pound, will pay a marginal rate of
:24:21. > :24:24.76%. -- if they earn an extra pound. The 98% he is talking about is a
:24:25. > :24:31.specific area to do with lone parents but there are specific
:24:32. > :24:34.compound areas in the process that mean people are
:24:35. > :24:39.compound areas in the process that at home then going to work. They
:24:40. > :24:43.will be able to identify how much they are better off without needing
:24:44. > :24:50.to have a maths degree to figure it out. They are all taken away at
:24:51. > :24:54.different rates at the moment, it is complex and chaotic. Under universal
:24:55. > :25:01.credit that won't happen, and they will always be better off than they
:25:02. > :25:10.are now. Would you work that bit harder if the Government was going
:25:11. > :25:16.to take away that portion of what you learned? At the moment you are
:25:17. > :25:20.going to tax poor people at the same rate the French government taxes
:25:21. > :25:25.billionaires. Millions will be better off under this system of
:25:26. > :25:27.universal credit, I promise you and that level of withdrawal then
:25:28. > :25:35.becomes something governments have to publicly discussed as to whether
:25:36. > :25:42.they lower or raise it. But George Osborne wouldn't give you the extra
:25:43. > :25:46.money to allow for the taper, is that right? The moment somebody
:25:47. > :25:51.crosses into work under the present system, there are huge cliff edges,
:25:52. > :25:57.in other words the immediate withdrawal makes it worse for them
:25:58. > :26:02.to go into work than otherwise. If he had given you more money, you
:26:03. > :26:10.could have tapered it more gently? Of course, but the Chancellor can
:26:11. > :26:16.always ultimately make that decision. These decisions are made
:26:17. > :26:21.by chancellors like tax rates, but it would be much easier under this
:26:22. > :26:25.system for the public to see what the Government chooses as its
:26:26. > :26:32.priorities. At the moment nobody has any idea but in the future it will
:26:33. > :26:37.be. Under the Pathfinders, we are finding people are going to work
:26:38. > :26:44.faster, doing more job searches and more likely to take work under
:26:45. > :26:52.universal credit. Public Accounts Committee said this programme has
:26:53. > :27:00.been worse than doing nothing, for the long-term credit. It has not
:27:01. > :27:04.been a glorious success, has it That is wrong. Right now the work
:27:05. > :27:08.programme is succeeding, more people are going to work, somewhere in the
:27:09. > :27:11.order of 500,000 people have are going to work, somewhere in the
:27:12. > :27:17.back into work as a result of the programme. Around 280,000 people are
:27:18. > :27:22.in a sustained work over six months. Many companies are well
:27:23. > :27:27.above it, and the whole point about the work programme is that it is
:27:28. > :27:30.setup so that we make the private sector, two things that are
:27:31. > :27:36.important, there is competition in every area so that people can be
:27:37. > :27:41.sucked out of the programme and others can move in. The important
:27:42. > :27:46.point here as well is this, that actually they don't get paid unless
:27:47. > :27:51.they sustain somebody for six months of employment. Under previous
:27:52. > :27:54.programmes under the last government, they wasted millions
:27:55. > :27:59.paying companies who took the money and didn't do enough to get people
:28:00. > :28:06.into work. The best performing provider only moved 5% of people off
:28:07. > :28:15.benefit into work, the worst managed only 2%. It is young people. That
:28:16. > :28:19.report was on the early first months of the work programme, it is a
:28:20. > :28:24.two-year point we are now and I can give you the figures for this. They
:28:25. > :28:28.are above the line, the improvement has been dramatic and the work
:28:29. > :28:37.programme is better than any other back to work programme under the
:28:38. > :28:43.last government. So why is long term unemployment rising? It is falling.
:28:44. > :28:48.We have the largest number of people back in work, there is more women in
:28:49. > :28:53.work than ever before, more jobs being created, 1.6 million new jobs
:28:54. > :29:00.being created. The work programme is working, our back to work programmes
:29:01. > :29:05.are incredibly successful at below cost so we are doing better than the
:29:06. > :29:10.last government ever did, and it will continue to improve because
:29:11. > :29:14.this process is very important. The competition is what drives up
:29:15. > :29:19.performance. We want the best performers to take the biggest
:29:20. > :29:25.numbers of people. You are practising Catholic, Archbishop
:29:26. > :29:29.Vincent Nichols has attached your reforms -- attack to your reforms,
:29:30. > :29:35.saying they are becoming more punitive to the most vulnerable in
:29:36. > :29:40.the land. What do you say? I don't agree. It would have been good if
:29:41. > :29:50.you called me before making these attacks because most are not
:29:51. > :29:54.correct. For the poorest temper sent in their
:29:55. > :29:58.society, they are now spending, as a percentage of their income, less
:29:59. > :30:04.than they did before. I'm not quite sure what he thinks welfare is
:30:05. > :30:07.about. Welfare is about stabilising people but most of all making sure
:30:08. > :30:13.that households can achieve what they need through work. The number
:30:14. > :30:16.of workless households under previous governments arose
:30:17. > :30:22.consistently. It has fallen for the first time in 30 years by nearly
:30:23. > :30:26.18%. Something like a quarter of a million children were growing up in
:30:27. > :30:29.workless households and are now in households with work and they are
:30:30. > :30:33.three times more likely to grow up with work than they would have been
:30:34. > :30:35.in workless households. Let me come into something that he may have had
:30:36. > :30:40.in mind as being punitive - some into something that he may have had
:30:41. > :30:43.other housing benefit changes. A year ago, the Prime Minister
:30:44. > :30:47.announced that people with severely disabled children would be exempt
:30:48. > :30:54.from the changes but that was only after your department fought a High
:30:55. > :30:58.Court battle over children who couldn't share a bedroom because of
:30:59. > :31:03.severe disabilities. Isn't that what the Archbishop means by punitive or,
:31:04. > :31:09.some may describe it, heartless We were originally going to appeal that
:31:10. > :31:12.and I said no. You put it up for an appeal and I said no. We're talking
:31:13. > :31:17.about families with disabled children. There are good reasons for
:31:18. > :31:21.this. Children with conditions like that don't make decisions about
:31:22. > :31:26.their household - their parents do - so I said we would exempt them. But
:31:27. > :31:29.for adults with disabilities the courts have upheld all of our
:31:30. > :31:35.decisions against complaints. But you did appeal it. It's just that,
:31:36. > :31:39.having lost in the appeal court you didn't then go to the Supreme Court.
:31:40. > :31:44.You make decisions about this. My view was that it was right to exempt
:31:45. > :31:48.them at that time. I made that decision, not the Prime Minister.
:31:49. > :31:51.Let's get this right - the context of this is quite important. Housing
:31:52. > :31:59.benefit under the last government doubled under the last ten years to
:32:00. > :32:02.?20 billion. It was set to rise to another 25 billion, the fastest
:32:03. > :32:06.rising of the benefits, it was out of control. We had to get it into
:32:07. > :32:11.control. It wasn't easy but we haven't cut the overall rise in
:32:12. > :32:13.housing. We've lowered it but we haven't cut housing benefit and
:32:14. > :32:18.we've tried to do it carefully so that people get a fair crack. On the
:32:19. > :32:23.spare room subsidy, which is what this complaint was about, the
:32:24. > :32:25.reality is that there are a quarter of a million people living in
:32:26. > :32:27.overcrowded accommodation. The last government left us with 1 million
:32:28. > :32:31.people on a waiting list for housing and there were half a million people
:32:32. > :32:36.sitting in houses with spare bedrooms they weren't using. As we
:32:37. > :32:39.build more houses, yes we need more, but the reality is that councils and
:32:40. > :32:42.others have to use their accommodation carefully so that they
:32:43. > :32:46.actually improve the lot of those living in desperate situations in
:32:47. > :32:49.overcrowded accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a lot of
:32:50. > :32:54.money. This will help people get back to work. They're more likely to
:32:55. > :32:57.go to work and more likely, therefore, to end up in the right
:32:58. > :33:04.sort of housing. We've not got much time left. A centre-right think tank
:33:05. > :33:08.that you've been associated with, on job-seeker's allowance, says 70 000
:33:09. > :33:16.job-seekers' benefits were withdrawn unfairly. A viewer wants to know,
:33:17. > :33:21.are these reforms too harsh and punitive? Those figures are not
:33:22. > :33:25.correct. The Policy Exchange is wrong? Those figures are not correct
:33:26. > :33:32.and we will be publishing corrected figures. The reality is... Some
:33:33. > :33:35.people have lost their job-seeker benefits and been forced to go to
:33:36. > :33:41.food backs and they shouldn't have. No, they're not. What he is
:33:42. > :33:45.referring to is that we allowed an adviser to make a decision if some
:33:46. > :33:49.but it is not cooperating. We now make people sign a contract, where
:33:50. > :33:52.they agree these things. These are things we do for you and if you
:33:53. > :33:56.don't do these things, you are likely to have your benefit
:33:57. > :33:59.withdrawn on job-seeker's allowance. Some of this was an fairly
:34:00. > :34:04.withdrawn. There are millions of these things that go through. This
:34:05. > :34:09.is a very small subset. But if you lose your job-seeker benefit
:34:10. > :34:15.unfairly, you have no cash flow There is an immediate review within
:34:16. > :34:19.seven days of that decision. Within seven days, that decision is
:34:20. > :34:23.reviewed. They are able to get a hardship fund straightaway if there
:34:24. > :34:28.is a problem. We have nearly ?1 billion setup to help people,
:34:29. > :34:34.through crisis, hardship funds and in many other ways. We've given more
:34:35. > :34:39.than ?200 million to authorities to do face-to-face checks. This is not
:34:40. > :34:44.a nasty, vicious system but a system that says, "look, we ask you to do
:34:45. > :34:47.certain things. Taxpayers pay this money. You are out of work but you
:34:48. > :34:51.have obligations to seek work. We simply ask that you stick to doing
:34:52. > :34:56.those. Those sanctions are therefore be but he will not cooperate" . I
:34:57. > :34:59.think it is only fair to say to those people that they make choices
:35:00. > :35:03.throughout their life and if they choose not to cooperate, this is
:35:04. > :35:11.what happens. Is child poverty rising? No, it is actually falling
:35:12. > :35:17.in the last figures. 300,000 it fell in the last... Let me show you these
:35:18. > :35:21.figures. That is a projection by the Institute of fiscal studies. It also
:35:22. > :35:25.shows that it has gone up every year and will rise by 400,000 in this
:35:26. > :35:30.Parliament, and your government, and will continue to rise. But never
:35:31. > :35:37.mind the projection. It may be right, may be wrong. It would be
:35:38. > :35:40.400,000 up compared to when -- what you inherited when this Parliament
:35:41. > :35:45.ends. That isn't a projection but the actual figures. But the last
:35:46. > :35:50.figures show that child poverty has fallen by some 300,000. The
:35:51. > :35:55.important point is... Can I just finished this point of? Child
:35:56. > :35:57.important point is... Can I just poverty is measured against 60% of
:35:58. > :36:03.median income so this is an issue about how we measure child poverty.
:36:04. > :36:06.You want to change the measure. I made the decision not to publish our
:36:07. > :36:10.change figures at this point because we've still got a bit more work to
:36:11. > :36:13.do on them but there is a big consensus that the way we measure
:36:14. > :36:18.child poverty right now does not measure exactly what requires to be
:36:19. > :36:22.done. For example, a family with an individual parent who may be drug
:36:23. > :36:25.addicted and gets what we think is enough money to be just over the
:36:26. > :36:28.line, their children may be living in poverty but they won't be
:36:29. > :36:31.measured so we need to get a measurement that looks at poverty in
:36:32. > :36:37.terms of how people live, not just in terms of the income levels they
:36:38. > :36:42.have. You can see on that chart - 400,000 rising by the end of this
:36:43. > :36:46.Parliament - you are deciding over an increase. Speedier I want to
:36:47. > :36:49.change it because under the last government child poverty rose
:36:50. > :36:55.consistently from 2004 and they ended up chucking huge sums of money
:36:56. > :37:02.into things like tax credits. In tax credits, in six years before the
:37:03. > :37:05.last election, the last government spent ?175 billion chasing a poverty
:37:06. > :37:09.target and they didn't achieve what they set out to achieve. We don't
:37:10. > :37:14.want to continue down that line where you simply put money into a
:37:15. > :37:18.welfare system to alter a marginal income line. It doesn't make any
:37:19. > :37:22.sense. That's why we want to change it, not because some projection says
:37:23. > :37:35.it might be going up. I will point out again it isn't a projection up
:37:36. > :37:39.to 2013-14. You want it to make work pay but more people in poverty are
:37:40. > :37:45.now in working families than in workless families. For them, workers
:37:46. > :37:50.not paying. Those figures referred to the last government's time in
:37:51. > :37:56.government. What is interesting about it is that until 2010, under
:37:57. > :38:00.the last government, those in working families - poverty in
:38:01. > :38:04.working families rose by half a million. For the two years up to the
:38:05. > :38:08.end of those figures, it has been flat, under this government. These
:38:09. > :38:14.are figures at the last government... You inherited and it
:38:15. > :38:19.hasn't changed. The truth is, even if you are in poverty in a working
:38:20. > :38:22.family, your children, if they are in workless families, are three
:38:23. > :38:28.times more likely to be out of work and to suffer real hardship. So, in
:38:29. > :38:30.other words, moving people up the scale, into work and then on is
:38:31. > :38:35.other words, moving people up the important. The problem with the last
:38:36. > :38:38.government system with working tax credit is it locks them into certain
:38:39. > :38:42.hours and they didn't progress. We're changing that so that you
:38:43. > :38:46.progress on up and go out of poverty through work and beyond it. But
:38:47. > :38:51.those figures you're referring to refer to the last government's
:38:52. > :38:57.tenure and they spent ?175 billion on a tax credit which still left
:38:58. > :39:01.people in work in poverty. Even 20 minutes isn't enough to go through
:39:02. > :39:05.all this. A lot more I'd like to talk about. I hope you will come
:39:06. > :39:09.back. I will definitely come back. Thank you for joining us.
:39:10. > :39:12.You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:39:13. > :39:20.in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.
:39:21. > :53:08.In Humberside police have h`d to ignore 7,000 violent crimes, because
:53:09. > :53:11.they were basically overrun. At the same time they found time to visit
:53:12. > :53:17.Sue three times in that perhod to catch her with a small amount of
:53:18. > :53:18.cannabis. It's an absolute nonsense. Catching Sue's not solving crime,
:53:19. > :53:30.it's just wasting public money. I think there's nothing tough about
:53:31. > :53:33.just carrying on with poliches that self`evidently aren't working. Does
:53:34. > :53:36.anybody seriously think we're winning the war on drugs, when there
:53:37. > :53:40.are more and more drugs being put onto the marketplace, more `nd more
:53:41. > :53:42.of our youngsters are using drugs at a younger and younger age, when
:53:43. > :53:50.criminal organisations around the world are raking in billions and
:53:51. > :53:53.billions of illicit profit? I'm labelled a criminal in the eyes
:53:54. > :53:58.of the law, but it's an unjtst, unfair law. It's legal in so many
:53:59. > :54:02.States in America and so many countries. You know, I just think
:54:03. > :54:11.it's the way forward. My name is Matthew Grove and I'm the
:54:12. > :54:15.Police and Crime Commissiondr for the Humberside force area. To
:54:16. > :54:17.pretend that criminality and crime will suddenly disappear frol our
:54:18. > :54:20.communities because cannabis is liberalised, is legalised ` well,
:54:21. > :54:28.whoever's suggesting that I think is on cloud`cuckoo`land. And I invite
:54:29. > :54:31.them to come with me to somd of the really difficult areas that I
:54:32. > :54:33.represent, and come and meet the people, come and meet the
:54:34. > :54:40.neighbours, the law`abiding, decent people, who have to cope with the
:54:41. > :54:42.criminality. Come and understand that actually, the use of
:54:43. > :54:46.narcotics, the use of cannabis, is actually embedded in a lot of these
:54:47. > :54:49.feckless people who are not working, many of them are on benefits, and
:54:50. > :54:55.cannabis is a major part of their life. Legalise it, send out the
:54:56. > :54:57.message that it's OK to smoke cannabis and not go out to work
:54:58. > :55:19.Absolutely not, not on my w`tch Are we losing the war on drtgs, to
:55:20. > :55:27.use that famous phrase? Who agrees with Nick? I feel for anybody going
:55:28. > :55:34.through pain like that MS stfferer. What concerns me is the resdarch
:55:35. > :55:39.into cannabis linked psychotic illnesses, and I would like `` have
:55:40. > :55:45.to see a great deal of substantial evidence for that to be condoned and
:55:46. > :55:51.legalised. I don't believe we are winning the drugs war, really, and
:55:52. > :55:59.the is a lot we need to do, we are doing a lot but we need to go
:56:00. > :56:02.further. You would rule out decriminalising cannabis evdn for
:56:03. > :56:09.medical use? I would like to see a lot more substantial evidence. The
:56:10. > :56:15.Labour Government under Davhd Blunkett downgraded cannabis before
:56:16. > :56:27.it was three graded. Would xou imagine a future Labour Govdrnment
:56:28. > :56:31.could look at the laws again? We would want to ensure the trdatment
:56:32. > :56:40.is there. It has been to Lib Dem club lawyer `` ministers who have
:56:41. > :56:43.gutted budget for drug support. Claire Thomas, your police
:56:44. > :56:47.Commissioner is suggesting that those in favour of legalisation are
:56:48. > :56:51.living in cloud`cuckoo`land. I don't think anybody would say that we are
:56:52. > :56:58.winning the war on drugs, and I think staying at the status quo is
:56:59. > :57:00.the right thing would just be wrong. `` I think that staying. I don't
:57:01. > :57:04.think anybody at the moment is saying one way or another, we need
:57:05. > :57:10.change, there are too many people who are suffering from the damage
:57:11. > :57:17.that drugs do, but people who take drugs but also the climate that
:57:18. > :57:20.creates. But one of the things we knew to look at is the European
:57:21. > :57:25.debate. If we were not in Etrope, we would not be able to tackle the
:57:26. > :57:30.drugs crime that happens across borders, and that is really
:57:31. > :57:39.important. Nick Clegg's abott to head onto the stage shortly in the
:57:40. > :57:44.Conference hall. He starts speaking in about ten minutes' time. But we
:57:45. > :57:50.are joined by Edward McMill`n Scott, Lib Dem MEP for Yorkshire and the
:57:51. > :57:55.Humber. You can give us a flavour of what is in Nick Clegg's spedch. I
:57:56. > :57:59.think is good to focus on the economy first, by saying th`t this
:58:00. > :58:04.Government has had to take dmergency measures to deal with the they were
:58:05. > :58:07.left. It is a story we all know Vince Cable was right about the
:58:08. > :58:14.banks, there was a mess there as well, he is also going to t`lk about
:58:15. > :58:22.Europe, the rise of populisl and xenophobia across Europe but in this
:58:23. > :58:30.country through UKIP. Your party is rattled by UKIP. In this region
:58:31. > :58:33.about one in ten jobs depends on our access to the European single
:58:34. > :58:37.market, it is crucial for jobs, and neither the Conservatives nor Labour
:58:38. > :58:41.have got anything much to s`y about Europe. Conservatives are frightened
:58:42. > :58:49.of UKIP, Labour are uneasy `bout Europe generally, we are thd party
:58:50. > :58:55.of him. You are frightened of UKIP. What do you say to that? I would not
:58:56. > :59:00.say frightened. I think one thing but UKIP shows is that it is a big
:59:01. > :59:04.concern for the British people really. At the end of the d`y we are
:59:05. > :59:08.the only party who is promising a referendum, and to see about
:59:09. > :59:12.renegotiating. It is a Lib Dem smack the Lib Dem and Labour peers who
:59:13. > :59:15.shot that down in the house of Lords, it is the Conservatives who
:59:16. > :59:20.trust the British people to make their decision. The one o'clock why
:59:21. > :59:29.would add Miliband promised a referendum on Europe? `` Veronica.
:59:30. > :59:33.`` Ed Miliband. The Tories want to engineer an excellent from Durope,
:59:34. > :59:39.and the late `` the Lib Dems say it is great. Labour want to be part of
:59:40. > :59:41.Europe, but a reformed Europe that works for people. That's whx we are
:59:42. > :59:46.putting forward common`sensd proposals that would work, from
:59:47. > :59:51.looking around the ways that new member States come on board, looking
:59:52. > :59:54.at things like getting a new EU jobs Commissioner. The biggest thing we
:59:55. > :00:01.have to tackle is jobs, and we know that... Another commissioner on a
:00:02. > :00:06.massive six`figure salary? Ht is about the jobs. I was out door
:00:07. > :00:14.knocking yesterday and nobody mentioned Europe but people mention
:00:15. > :00:19.jobs and the economy. But pdople perhaps living in your area would be
:00:20. > :00:22.very sceptical about mass ET immigration is. If somebody has lost
:00:23. > :00:27.their job to somebody from Poland Lithuania, they are not going to
:00:28. > :00:31.vote for the Lib Dems. What is interesting is that we are putting
:00:32. > :00:34.out a very clear choice, if you want to be in Europe than vote for the
:00:35. > :00:38.Lib Dems, if you want to be out of Europe, that is what UKIP are
:00:39. > :00:41.talking about. I have not sden a single leaflet from Labour the
:00:42. > :00:48.Conservatives that even mentions Europe. The Conservatives are split
:00:49. > :00:52.about it, and they are weak on Europe. Labour are just not talking
:00:53. > :00:58.about it at all. We are setting out a stall but says we are the party of
:00:59. > :01:04.him, we value the improvements that Europe gives us in terms of jobs. It
:01:05. > :01:08.helps us keep the jobs in otr area. If you look at the number of people
:01:09. > :01:14.who do not have jobs, we nedd to make sure we fight for thosd jobs.
:01:15. > :01:17.But Edward, when Vince Cabld says he is relaxed about immigration, many
:01:18. > :01:23.of the people you represent are not exactly, are they? It is an
:01:24. > :01:29.important component in our dconomy. The figures that came out fhnally on
:01:30. > :01:34.immigration show that it is not quite as people have been thinking.
:01:35. > :01:39.That is very recent. Just on the question of jobs, I was with Nick
:01:40. > :01:47.Clegg last week in Sheffield for a meeting of apprentices, and one was
:01:48. > :01:51.from a company that... We are running out of time. You ard going
:01:52. > :01:58.to take part in a debate with UKIP's Jane Collins. A mirror image
:01:59. > :02:04.of the Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage debate. We are going to havd to
:02:05. > :02:10.leave it there. Thank you all for your time today. Andrea Jenkins
:02:11. > :02:14.Veronica King, Claire Thomas and Edward McMillan Scott. `` Andrea
:02:15. > :02:18.Jenkyns. You have been watching the Sunday politics here in Yorkshire
:02:19. > :02:19.and Lincolnshire. Live from sunny Europe.
:02:20. > :02:37.Now, without further ado, more from our political panel. Iain Martin,
:02:38. > :02:43.what did you make of Iain Duncan Smith's response to the Danny
:02:44. > :02:47.Alexander point I'd put to him? I thought it was a cheekily put
:02:48. > :02:50.response but actually, on Twitter, people have been tweeting while on
:02:51. > :02:56.air that there are lots of examples where the Tories have demanded the
:02:57. > :03:01.raising of the threshold. The 2 06 Forsyth tax omission is another
:03:02. > :03:08.example. Helen, on the bigger issue of welfare reforms, is welfare
:03:09. > :03:11.reform, as we head into the election, despite all the
:03:12. > :03:16.criticisms, still a plus for the government? I don't think so.
:03:17. > :03:20.Whatever the opposite of a Midas touch is, Iain Duncan Smith has got
:03:21. > :03:25.it. David Cameron never talks about universal credit any more. The
:03:26. > :03:30.record on personal independence payment, for example... We didn t
:03:31. > :03:34.get onto that. Only one in six of those notes have been paid. A toss
:03:35. > :03:42.pulling out of their condiment has been a nightmare. It's a very big
:03:43. > :03:53.minus point for the Secretary of State. -- Atos pulling out of bed
:03:54. > :03:59.contract. Welfare cuts are an unambiguous point for the government
:04:00. > :04:05.but other points more ambiguous I don't think it's technical
:04:06. > :04:10.complexity that makes IDS's reform a problem. The IT gets moved out with
:04:11. > :04:13.time. But even if it's in fermented perfectly, what it will achieve has
:04:14. > :04:19.been slightly oversold, I think and simplified incredibly. All it does
:04:20. > :04:22.is improve incentives to work for one section of the income scale and
:04:23. > :04:28.diminishes it at another. Basically, you are encouraged to go from
:04:29. > :04:32.working zero hours to 16 hours but your incentive to work beyond 1
:04:33. > :04:34.goes down. That's not because it's a horrendous policy but because in
:04:35. > :04:42.work benefits systems are imperceptible. Most countries do
:04:43. > :04:49.worse than we do. -- benefits systems cannot be perfected. They
:04:50. > :04:52.need to tone down how much this can achieve even if it all goes
:04:53. > :04:58.flawlessly. There are clearly problems, particularly within
:04:59. > :05:01.limitation, but Labour is still wary of welfare reform. -- with
:05:02. > :05:05.implementation. Polls suggest it is rather popular. People may not know
:05:06. > :05:13.what's involved were like the sound of it. I think Janan is right to
:05:14. > :05:19.mark out the differences between welfare cuts and welfare reforms.
:05:20. > :05:26.They are related but distinct. Are we saying cuts are more popular than
:05:27. > :05:33.reform? They clearly are. The numbers, when you present people
:05:34. > :05:38.numbers on benefit reductions, are off the scale. Reform, for the
:05:39. > :05:44.reasons you explored in your interview, is incredibly
:05:45. > :05:46.compensated. What's interesting is that Labour haven't really
:05:47. > :05:52.definitively said what their position is on this. I think they
:05:53. > :05:57.like - despite what they may see in public occasionally - some of what
:05:58. > :06:05.universal credit might produce but they don't want to be associated
:06:06. > :06:07.with it. We probably won't know until if Ed Miliband is Prime
:06:08. > :06:13.Minister precisely what direction Labour will go. Immigration is still
:06:14. > :06:17.a hot topic in Westminster and throughout the country. This new
:06:18. > :06:22.Home Office minister, James Brokenshire, made an intervention.
:06:23. > :06:26.Let's see what he had to say. For too long, the benefits of
:06:27. > :06:30.immigration went to employers who wanted an easy supply of cheap
:06:31. > :06:34.labour or to the wealthy metropolitan elite who wanted cheap
:06:35. > :06:38.tradesmen and services, but not to the ordinary hard-working people of
:06:39. > :06:41.this country. With the result that the Prime Minister and everyone else
:06:42. > :06:46.has to tell us all whether they ve now got Portuguese or whatever it is
:06:47. > :06:51.Nanny is. Is this the most cack-handed intervention on an
:06:52. > :06:55.immigration issue in a long list? I think it is and when I saw this
:06:56. > :07:01.being trailed the night before, I worried for him. As soon as a
:07:02. > :07:36.minister of the Crown uses the phrase "wealthy metropolitan elite"
:07:37. > :07:43.more likely we see it in recession. We've just had the worst recession
:07:44. > :07:46.in several decades. It's no small problem but compared to what
:07:47. > :07:50.ministers like James Brokenshire has been saying for the past few years
:07:51. > :07:53.and also the reluctance to issue the report earlier, I thought that,
:07:54. > :07:59.combined with the speech, made it quite a bad week for the department.
:08:00. > :08:04.Was this a cack-handed attempt to appeal to the UKIP voters? I think
:08:05. > :08:09.so and he's predecessor had to leave the job because of having a foreign
:08:10. > :08:13.cleaner. It drew attention to the Tories' biggest problem, the out of
:08:14. > :08:16.touch problem. Most people around the country probably don't have a
:08:17. > :08:23.Portuguese nanny and you've just put a big sign over David Cameron
:08:24. > :08:26.saying, this man can afford a Portuguese Nanny. It is not the
:08:27. > :08:30.finest political operation ever conducted and the speech was
:08:31. > :08:33.definitely given by the Home Office to Number Ten but did Number Ten
:08:34. > :08:40.bother to read it? It was a complete shambles. The basic argument that
:08:41. > :08:44.there is a divide between a wealthy metropolitan elite and large parts
:08:45. > :08:49.of Middle Britain or the rest of the country I think is basically sound.
:08:50. > :08:54.It is but they are on the wrong side of it. What do you mean by that The
:08:55. > :09:00.Tory government is on the wrong side. This is appealing to UKIP
:09:01. > :09:03.voters and we know that UKIP is appealing to working-class voters
:09:04. > :09:06.who have previously voted Labour and Tory. If you set up that divide
:09:07. > :09:12.make sure you are on the right side stop When you talk about
:09:13. > :09:15.metropolitan members of the media class, they say that it is rubbish
:09:16. > :09:21.and everyone has a Polish cleaner. No, they don't. I do not have a
:09:22. > :09:27.clean! I don't clean behind the fridge, either! Most people in the
:09:28. > :09:38.country don't have a cleaner. The problem for the Tories on this is,
:09:39. > :09:43.why play that game? You can't out-UKIP UKIP. After two or three
:09:44. > :09:50.years of sustained Tory effort to do that, they will probably finish
:09:51. > :09:53.behind UKIP. Do we really want a political system where it becomes an
:09:54. > :10:00.issue of where your nanny or your cleaner is from, if you've got one?
:10:01. > :10:05.Unless, of course, they're illegal. But Portuguese or Italian or
:10:06. > :10:09.Scottish... And intervention was from Nick Clegg who said his wife
:10:10. > :10:19.was Dutch -- his mum was Dutch and his wife was Spanish. Not communism
:10:20. > :10:23.but who your cleaner is! It's the McCarthy question! Where does your
:10:24. > :10:28.cleaner come from. A lot of people will say are lucky to have a
:10:29. > :10:33.cleaner. I want to move onto selfies but first, on the Nigel Farage
:10:34. > :10:41.Nick Clegg debate, let's stick with the TV one. Who do you think will
:10:42. > :10:44.win? Nigel Farage. Clegg. He is a surprisingly good in debates and
:10:45. > :10:51.people have forgotten. I think Clegg is going to win. I think Farage has
:10:52. > :11:00.peaked. We're going to keep that on tape as well! Two 214 Clegg there.
:11:01. > :11:04.Selfies. Politicians are attempting to show they're down with the kids.
:11:05. > :11:14.Let's look at some that we've seen in recent days.
:11:15. > :11:52.Why are they doing this, Helen? I'm so embarrassed you call me reading
:11:53. > :11:57.the SNP manifesto, as I do every Saturday! They do it because it
:11:58. > :12:00.makes them seem authentic and that's the big Lie that social media tells
:12:01. > :12:06.you - that you're seeing the real person. You're not, you're seeing a
:12:07. > :12:12.very carefully manicured, more witty person. That doesn't work for
:12:13. > :12:15.politicians. It looks so fake and I'm still suffering the cringe I see
:12:16. > :12:22.every time I see Cameronserious phone face. Does Mr Cameron really
:12:23. > :12:31.think it big Sim up because he's on the phone to President Obama? Obama
:12:32. > :12:34.is not the personality he once was. There is an international crisis in
:12:35. > :12:39.Ukraine - of course we are expecting to be speaking to Obama! And if you
:12:40. > :12:44.were in any doubt about what a man talking on the telephone looks like,
:12:45. > :12:50.here's a photo. I must confess, I didn't take my own selfie. Did your
:12:51. > :12:57.nanny? My father-in-law took it Where is your father-in-law from?
:12:58. > :13:11.Scotland. Just checking. Janan, I think we've got one of you. The 1%!
:13:12. > :13:15.What a great telephone! Where did you get that telephone? It looks
:13:16. > :13:20.like Wolf Of Wall Street! That's what I go to bed in. It showed how
:13:21. > :13:24.excited Cameron was to what I go to bed in. It showed how
:13:25. > :13:29.phone to Obama. All our politicians think they are living a mini version
:13:30. > :13:33.of US politics. President Obama goes on a big plane and we complain when
:13:34. > :13:36.George Osborne goes first class on first Great Western. They want to be
:13:37. > :13:42.big and important like American politics but it doesn't work. We'll
:13:43. > :13:46.see your top at next week! That's it for this week. Faxed all
:13:47. > :13:51.our guests. The Daily Politics is on all this week at lunchtime on BBC
:13:52. > :13:56.Two. We'll be back here same time, same place next week. Remember, if
:13:57. > :14:01.it's Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.